lou gagliardi wants to kidnap your children

Unfortunately, the following Twitter conversation will be somewhat disjointed and I will be unable to adequately link to all of the various tweets. Why? Because Lou Gagliardi is a spineless coward who, upon realizing what she said, Memory Hole’d the tweets I managed to keep screen captures of.

Why did she delete these tweets? Why do you think – because she knows just how reprehensible and disgusting they really are.

Lou Gagliardi: #gunowner #terrorist @linoge_wotc thinks owning military grade weapon is a “human right” If he has children, they should be taken off him

Read that again, just to let it sink in. Check out the screen capture if you do not believe my reprinting of it. For the heinous “crime” of standing up for my human rights of self-preservation, self-defense, the ownership of private property, and simply being left alone to live my life in peace, Lou Gagliardi wants some nameless, faceless entity (otherwise known as “the federal government”, no doubt) to unjustly relieve me of my (non-existent) children without due process, a trial, or any other Constitutionally-protected rights observed.

Wow. Just. Plain. Wow.

To begin with, as we pro-rights advocates have always maintained, if you cannot respect one Constitutionally-protected right, you cannot respect any of them. As much as Lou Gagliardi absolutely despises the rights protected by the Second Amendment (which, by the way, does include the right to own “military grade weapons” – after all, the Founding Fathers had no problems with their citizenry owning cannon and warships, for heaven’s sake), she likewise hates the rights protected by the First and Fourth Amendments, and arguably the Ninth and Tenth as well.

Moving on, Lou Gagliardi has, to put it simply, been losing her gos-se over my comment that she wants to kidnap the children of people who own AR-15s, and whatever-the-hell else she thinks qualifies as a “military grade weapon” (even though, obviously, AR-15s are not even used by the military). Unfortunately for her, that is simply the way our representative-style government works. If you call for the government to do X, and it actually does X, you share in the responsibility of that action being executed. If you elect a representative who says he does X, and he actually goes and does X, you share in the responsibility of that action being executed. This is part of the reason I am becoming a more and more staunch independent, and why I am having a harder and harder time voting for any incumbents whatsoever – I refuse to share in the dirt they have on their hands.

Having armed men do something on your behalf simply does not keep your hands clean; this is actually one of the largest disconnects we rational pro-rights activists have with “gun control” extremists like Lou Gagliardi here. They absolutely cannot tolerate the notion of private citizens keeping firearms for their own personal defense, but they have absolutely no problems calling… armed citizens who happen to have badges to come and use their firearms to defend them. Helpful Hint: violence by proxy does not keep your hands clean.

Addendum to Helpful Hint: neither does kidnapping by proxy.

Unfortunately, Lou Gagliardi was not content to simply leave it at that:

Lou Gagliardi: @GunRightsAlert @linoge_wotc this is exactly why they should be taking off of you. thank you for the evidence to prove my point.

Incomprehensible grammar aside, Lou Gagliardi’s position is pretty clear – if you own “military grade weapon(s)” (which basically means whatever this ignorant imbecile says it means), your children should be forcibly removed from your protection.

But Lou Gagliardi herself is not going to be doing the kidnapping… oh, no, she could not dream of getting her pretty little hands dirty like that. Instead, she wants other people – other armed people, ironically enough – to do her dirty work for her… as if that will somehow keep those hands of hers clean.

Newsflash: it will not.

Secondary Newsflash: attempting to forcibly relieve firearm-owning, responsible, willing-to-defend-themselves-and-their-families adults of their children is not going to end well.

But, after all, that is exactly why Lou Gagliardi wants someone else to execute her totalitarian pipe dreams – she is too much of a coward to go door-to-door herself, and face those armed parents while attempting to unjustly and unethically strip them of their children. She would rather hide in whatever hovel she calls a home, and demand, plead, scream for men – armed men, despite her hatred of firearms – to go and kidnap law-abiding citizens’ children for no good reason except she does not like something you said.

And, tell me, what will those armed men do when you say, “No”? What will those armed men do when you attempt to defend your children – your family – from unjust and illegal attempts at kidnapping them?

If you follow Lou Gagliardi’s demands to their logical conclusion, she wants people – other people, of course (you, federal agents, your children, etc.) – to die simply because she does not like you owning firearms and peacefully expressing that you support the right to continue owning them.

Bear that murderous hatred in mind when you question the need to contact your senators and representatives and let them know that your support depends on their support of freedom and our individual rights.

[Update] Holy crap on an everloving crutch. Immediately after writing this post and finally tired of Lou Gagliardi’s incessant lies and harassment, I went to block her Twitter account, only to be confronted with this tweet:

Take a look at the article she links to – a woman defends her family from a known felon breaking into her house, and yet Lou Gagliardi wants this woman’s children stolen from her? “Disgusting” does not even begin to cover that position. [/Update]

30 comments to lou gagliardi wants to kidnap your children

Can you show me where she said kidnap? Can you show me where she said armed people? Can you show me where in the United States child’s services is armed?

I don’t agree with her, but you are not representing anything she said, based on your post as factual. If anything with arguments like “Instead, she wants other people – other armed people, ironically enough – to do her dirty work for her… as if that will somehow keep those hands of hers clean. ” and “Helpful Hint: violence by proxy does not keep your hands clean. ”

Can you show where she said ANYTHING about violence? If you can, I agree with you. If you can’t then the only one advocating violence is you, which validates her point.

Thankfully, someone else has already explained this better than I would ever need to:

Government: We need to double your taxes so that umpires don’t forget to turn off the ballfield lights after games are over.

Citizen: No.

Government: Um….but we need it.

Citizen: No.

Government: Well, it doesn’t matter what you think. You have to pay it anyway.

Citizen: No.

Government: [Later] I see you didn’t pay the new tax rate. Here’s your updated bill with penalties and interest.

Citizen: No.

Government: Okay, fine. See you in court!

Citizen: No.

Government: What? BUT YOU HAVE TO GO!

Citizen: No.

Government: Fine. We waved a magic wand and took ownership of your house. You have to get out.

Citizen: No.

Government: [Press Release] SWAT was deployed today and killed a barricaded suspect. Multiple attempts to negotiate were rejected, so SWAT had to move in. The suspect resisted arrest and was shot 37 times. We waited a couple of hours and then found out he was dead.

Every law, every regulation, every legislation, every restriction, every code, every limitation ends in puppy-killing (or, in this case, parent-killing) SWAT teams. That is not only how the government works, that is what the government is.

The government is force, pure and simple.

No, as far as I know, Child Protective Services are not armed. But what happens when you say “no” to them? They go get the police. And what happens when you say “no” to the police? They get SWAT, because suddenly you are holding your children hostage. And what happens when you say “no” to SWAT?

If you follow any “there ought to be a law”, or “the government should do”, or any of those statements to their natural, logical conclusion, it ends in violence, pure and simple. Some of us are intelligent enough to follow that logic train to its end. Some of us are honest enough to follow it to its natural conclusion. I happen to be both.

Heck, the thread was hard to follow in real-time given her account is protected and most of what she said was nearly incoherent. I’m not sure where exactly my line in the sand is but I can assure all comers that my children are behind it.

She kept saying, “…children taken off of them…” Who talks like that? I wondered if she was using some odd translating program. But after reading your first comment here, I think there’s mental illness involved. Who do these people think are going to do the taking? I guess the same unicorns that bring us EBT cards and free cell phones.

Fiona likely doesn’t like where that train of thought goes; she got off at the first stop – or more likely refuses to board the train. It’d harsh her mellow to really grasp that everything the gov’t provides is first taken from someone else.

I am disgusted by the fact that she is using Rainbow Dash’s cutie mark as her avatar. Next time she raises her ugly anti-rights head, ask her why she isn’t practicing “Love and Tolerance” as per the brony code.

I could suggest, for example, greater mental health care and harder psych evals and waiting periods..and I’d get labeled as anti-gun. And for what? Because I want to make sure that legal guns do not legally enter [Newtown shooter]’s or the likes hands?

The problem with the pro-gun movement is that ANYTHING that isn’t just a “HERE’S A GUN!” and you get one free means you somehow want to “infringe” on people’s rights.

@ Fiona Doyle:
To be a bit more clear about it, In most jurisdictions, when Child Protective Services (CPS) removes children from a home involuntarily, they are frequently accompanied by one or more police officers. If you say “No”, those police officers will move to take the children anyway. When you resist, they will use physical force. If you resist with potentially deadly force, they will shoot you. As Linoge noted, if you manage to shut them out, they will bring in SWAT and treat it as a hostage situation – at which point you will probably die (and your little dog, too).

@ AlanR: Unfortunately, her account is not protected, she was simply deleting the tweets within minutes of making them – made threading the conversation almost impossible, and it gave her immediate semi-plausible deniability as soon as we started pointing out what she said. Unfortunately for her, I kept screencaptures.

I dare say any parent’s line would include their children. At least any parent I would want to know.

@ chiefjaybob: If I had to make a somewhat insightful guess off Lou’s mannerisms, she phrased the matter in that way so as to distance herself as far away from the actual act as possible – like saying something in passive voice so as to not lay blame for the action.

That said, I wholeheartedly concur that Lou would be greatly assisted by some serious, professional psychological / psychiatric therapy – no one has to go through life as deranged as she obvious is.

@ Lazy Bike Commuter: Unfortunately, given her rants before I started tweeting at her and after, I dare say she is quite serious about everything she has said.

@ Oldradartech: It is unfortunately obvious that, disagreeing with Lou or not, Fiona is militantly unwilling to consider the consequences and ultimate results of what Lou advocates.

@ Fiona Doyle: You are aware that the Newtown murderer (kindly do not name him on my site – he does not deserve the notoriety) stole the guns he used to kill those children, yes? It is entirely likely that his mother – who actually owned the firearms – would have passed whatever arbitrary and whimsical “psych eval” you care to impose.

As for waiting periods – they kill. And, that aside, I currently own… well, almost every type of firearm except fully-automatic at the moment. Why should I have to go through a waiting period?

The problem with the pro-gun movement is that ANYTHING that isn’t just a “HERE’S A GUN!” and you get one free means you somehow want to “infringe” on people’s rights.

What Lou advocated would unquestionably ultimately end in someone’s death. What Lou advocated was the illegal, illegitimate, and unjust taking of a child from his or her parents’ guardianship. What is it called when you illegally take someone from where they want to be?

I really enjoy these twitter feeds of stupidity you bring us Linogue. Largely as i cannot be bothered to argue with stupid and i thank you for having the patience to bring it to us. I have the time, just not the patience for it.
I did troll the WSJ and NYpost and a couple of other rags before Christmas in the comments section trying to correct people, but soon realized it was akin to sending Jehovah’s witnesses door to door in Afghanistan and expecting results.
I also have to say i hate that ‘military grade’ crap. I cannot find claymores anywhere online, or depleted uranium no matter what these folks keep saying.

Yes, Fiona, waiting periods kill. Most frequently it kills women who want something a little more convincing than a restraining order. Sadly, just that happened where I was stationed some years back. The girl came in and begged to purchase a firearm, but the gunshops’ hands were tied – they were forced to wait 3 days. The evening of day 2, the ex broke in and killed her. He didn’t use a gun, though, so I suppose thats’ alright, then.

@Fiona Doyle:
She did not use the word “kidnap” but that is exactly what she described. She said directly, to me specifically (@GunRightsAlert on Twitter), that my children should taken from me. Not that I should be investigated for child abuse or be given any due process of law, just taken from me. kidnap: to seize and detain or carry away by unlawful force or fraud. What she described is called “kidnapping.”

@ dave w: I see this kind of thing as a customer service. All too often we get a little too wrapped-up in the notion that “gun control” extremists are really well-meaning folks who just do not adequately understand the situation, and can be reached through reason and convincing arguments.

Speaking personally, I find deranged whackjobs like Lou Gagliardi here to be more the norm among that crowd, and it is helpful to remind folks that people like her really do exist, really do want to kidnap your children, and really are endorsing programs that will likely end in your violent and unjust death.

Tends to put the debate in a much more… engaging… light.

And, seriously, someone is handing out guns? Where do I sign up? Aside from Mexico…

@ Oldradartech: As you can see, I was going to simply ignore Fiona’s “your advocating violence” nonsense. On the one hand, it is naught but a lie, and a rather bald-faced on at that. On the other hand, even if I were advocating violence, so what? There is a difference between predatory violence and protective violence, and conflating the two is not only a lie in and of itself, it is a rather disgusting argumentative tactic. Even if I were “advocating violence” (which I plainly was not), it would obviously be “protect your family from people trying to steal your children” kind of violence, and if Fiona has a problem with that… well, that’s her own damned problem, honestly.

@ AlanR: I sit corrected. Given Lou Gagliardi’s rampant memory-hole-ing of entire conversations, I should not be surprised she employs all means of hiding her rampant bigotry and hatred.

And exactly so – Lou Gagliardi was the first to advocate violence by demanding that the state kidnap law-abiding citizens’ children for no better reason than she did not like what those citizens said. That path can only end in violence when those parents – understandably – say “NO!” Any violence on the parents’ part would be purely in defense of their children, and if that is a problem, those having the problem can respectfully go to hell.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: anti gun rights advocates don’t like gun OWNERS, not just the guns. If you have a gun in the same house as your children, you’re not a fit parent. If you don’t accept the validity of ineffectual gun regulations, you must want to see people die. An unarmed and otherwise peaceful people are just waiting for that missing ingredient — the gun — to turn them into homicidal maniacs.

It’s really an issue of trust. The anti gunners don’t trust the “average” person to own or use a gun responsibly despite the mountains of evidence against them.

@ Tom:
The philosophy of “gun control” revolves around two primary assumptions:
a) That “average”, good, law-abiding people can’t be trusted to obey laws (therefore, they must be disarmed for their own safety); and
b) That criminals and the mentally ill can (the whole “Just One More Law” thing).
“Gun control” fails in practice because its primary assumptions are completely and utterly ridiculous.

“[I]f you take all the guns off the street you still will have a crime problem, whereas if you take the criminals off the street you cannot have a gun problem.” – Jeff Cooper

@ Oldradartech: Seriously. I have a somewhat dim view of the psychological / psychiatric arts, but I dare say that Lou’s quality of life would be significantly improved with some serious sit-down time with a professional therapist of some type. She does not have issues… she has subscriptions.

@ Oakenheart: According to Lou Gagliardi, that kind of talk belongs in China. You know, where conspiracy to deprive people of human rights is a government sport.

And, yes, she did, in fact, tell me that my pro-rights stance belonged in China, not in America. Things like that kept making me have a glimmer of hope that this was just some elaborate troll, but I have concluded Gagliardi is simply that sick.

@ ExurbanKevin: Precisely. To hijack a quote, we have been down there. We already know that road. We know exactly where it ends. And I know that is not where we want to be

@ Rob Crawford: Why are you letting facts and reality get in the way of Fiona’s strawman?

@ Tom: And as I recently said on Twitter, if you do not trust me with a firearm, I do not trust you, period. Granted, that is a grossly oversimplified point, but the simple truth is that if you are uncertain about me having the means to adequately defend myself from illegal and illicit attempts on my life, my family, or my property… well, why do you not want that? Which of those three are you looking to relieve me of without my permission?

@ Archer: That is remarkably well-put! I might have to steal it for later…

@ dave w: Lou’s mentality really is not that far removed from that, is it?